A sexploitation film with a heart, but no soul

Damn straight this film had it all. Stephanie Rothman was a director with her mind on the matters and anxieties that plagued the world - and the locations in LA are a STAND OUT. The metropolis of LA is portrayed for the working, counter-cultural phenomena that it was in the day. Not just a city where movies are made.

Rothman was trying to make a statement through the examination of what was going on at the time. It was only sexploitation as far as the Corman 'New World' label would have it be.

This film is subtle, but it's ballsy and shoots from the hip. If you stream it again, keep all of this in mind, and it will be an even better film, and you will reflect and correct your previous statement - The film has Heart AND Soul. =)

"All I want in life is a thirty share and a twenty rating."

"...heart, but no soul." What the heck do you mean? Could you be specific about what your objections are? Maybe you meant to knock the film but your comment is actually encouraging!

I can't believe the positive reviews of the film on this thread. The film was poorly directed, and poorly edited. Voice-overs came out of nowhere, cuts were inconsistent. There was no one style of direction used throughout the entire film. The plot was all over the place, meandering from topic to topic, with no continuity or anything holding it together.

I don't expect films to be realistic, but this had nothing remotely resembling reality in it. The "counterculture" aspect of it was typical of movies of that era - meaning, the people who made it had no conception of how to portray it.

I certainly had no sympathy for V.C. and his "movement", which was portrayed as being heroic, but was nothing but a bunch of thugs (and I'm accused of being "liberal" all the time, so don't come after me for being insensitive to the plight of the poor or oppressed).

C'mon, folks; this came out of Roger Corman's studio. Looking for anything other than some bare boobs and lame action and special effects is absurd, considering the source. Anyone finding any social or political aspects is deluding themselves.

Now now GMEllis625 and Stoshie, you mustn't disregard it, you must appreciate it. 

Ms. Rothman's efforts were far beyond any other director at the time, and the very fact that she confronted what was going on with women in that period speaks very well for itself just how magnificent she was and is. It certainly made you think and feel which means it did it's job VERY poignantly. Abortion exists, it is real. It is approved by many in the medical profession, and it has baffled me that we haven't seen any more onscreen abortions in films which are made in true art and depict what is really going on with people. Because that's what is happening in this film, people and life.

As for the objectification of women, I think not. Men are more objectified than that of the women. At least equally for sure. Note the amount of male nudity, and what pigs they're actually made out to be in the long run. Well, crisp white collar doctors and hippies. The take that Stephanie Rothman uses for Victor Charles is that he is the only real man who cares. That he's a deep rebel might seem cliche now but think about how outreaching that must have been back then.

There is no right, or REAL way to depict anything in film anyhow. It is all perception and vision of the director and/or writer. What they're feeling, and how they wish to express it in their voices. That's part of directing, you know.

I recently saw the film presented at the Museum of Modern Art, and rightly so. It is a remarkable accomplishment and is now being given the treatment it deserves. 

When will you ever learn, this feeling is all you can discern?

1970 was the final year of the decade of the 60s. This is a very 60s film.